Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves James Michael Fayed, who was convicted of first-degree murder in 2008 for arranging the killing of his wife, Pamela Fayed, by paying an employee $25,000. The trial court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine under Penal Code § 1202.4. In 2024, Fayed filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the restitution fine, arguing it was imposed without his presence. The superior court partially granted the petition in March 2025, vacating the fine under § 1465.9(d) after 10 years post-imposition. The appeal was dismissed as Fayed lacks standing to challenge the order granting relief he sought, and the court lacks jurisdiction over unrelated federal actions.
Issues
- Whether the superior court's order denying the habeas corpus petition in part is appealable, as the court concluded such orders are not appealable under California law and must be dismissed.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to consolidate Fayed's California cases with four pending federal court actions, as the court held jurisdiction is limited to the specific order appealed and cannot extend to unrelated federal matters.
- Whether James Michael Fayed has standing to appeal after the superior court granted part of his habeas corpus petition, as the court ruled he lacks standing because the relief sought was already provided.
Holdings
The court dismissed the appeal because (1) the superior court's order denying the habeas corpus petition in part is not appealable, and (2) the defendant lacks standing to appeal the partial grant of his habeas petition since he received the relief he sought. Additionally, the court lacks jurisdiction to consolidate unrelated federal and state cases for review.
Remedies
The appeal is dismissed. The court found no arguable issues in the appeal of the superior court's order granting habeas corpus relief and vacating the restitution fine under Penal Code section 1465.9, subdivision (d).
Monetary Damages
10000.00
Legal Principles
The court dismissed the appeal because orders denying or granting habeas corpus relief are not appealable under Penal Code section 1506. Additionally, the defendant lacked standing to appeal since the superior court granted the relief he sought. The court also lacked jurisdiction to consolidate unrelated federal and state cases.
Precedent Name
- Dow v. Lassen Irrigation Co.
- In re Clark
- Faunce v. Cate
- In re A.K.
- People v. Gallardo
- Jackson v. Superior Court
- People v. Goff
- Briggs v. Brown
- Sabi v. Sterling
- People v. Superior Court (Plascencia)
- In re J.F.
- People v. Bilbrey
Cited Statute
- Penal Code
- Government Code
Judge Name
- Presiding Judge Martinez
- Judge Segal
- Judge Feuer
Passage Text
- The order granting his habeas petition in part is also not appealable; only the People can appeal from that order, and they did not. Section 1506 states: 'An appeal may be taken to the court of appeal by the people from a final order of a superior court made upon the return of a writ of habeas corpus discharging a defendant or otherwise granting all or any part of the relief sought.' (See People v. Gallardo (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 971, 986 ["[t]he Legislature has provided that the People may appeal from the granting of habeas corpus relief . . . but has not provided that remedy for a defendant"]; see also People v. Bilbrey (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 764, 772 ["[s]ection 1506 specifically authorizes and governs the People's appeal from a superior court's order upon the return of a writ of habeas corpus"]).
- Nor is Fayed aggrieved by the order he appeals from: The superior court gave him the relief he sought. Therefore, he lacks standing to appeal. (See Dow v. Lassen Irrigation Co. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 482, 487; In re A.K. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 492, 499; Sabi v. Sterling (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 916, 947; People v. Superior Court (Plascencia) (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 409, 420.)
- We do not, however, have jurisdiction to hear Fayed's appeal. The order denying his habeas petition in part is not appealable. (See Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, 836; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767, fn. 7; Jackson v. Superior Court (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1064.) Orders denying petitions for habeas corpus 'are not appealable,' and appeals from such orders 'must be dismissed.' (People v. Goff (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 1039, 1042.)